“There is NOTHING holding a woman back to become an Indie-Game developer” or Why feminism works

This is a female indie-game developer giving her 5 cent on Sarkeesian’s “tropes vs women”.

The video shows both: Why feminism sucks and why feminism works and has many followers.
In a nutshell: She – at first – found herself agreeing with Sarkeesian, because she recognized and acknowledged the described symptoms.
It took the ton of negative feedback that was heaped upon Sarkeesian to make her reflect if there was anything about “tropes vs women” that deserved criticism. And she found that practically all of Sarkeesian’s conclusions and accusations were for the trash.

And I think you can generalize that…

Women hear feminists describe situations:
– You have a lower paying job than most males you know
– You have to deal with sexual aggressiveness in a way that males don’t
(or alternatively for the ugly ones:)
– You are not appreciated as much as you’d like because of your looks.
– You have to find a compromise that males don’t in finding a balance between children and career

…and find these are all true.

I agree.

These are all situations that a man won’t be confronted with, at least not in the same way a woman is.

The problem is: Most women won’t do the next step, the step this game developer takes in her video.
“OK, feminism describes the status quo accurately as far as I am concerned. What about their theory how the status quo came to be? Does that hold water? Are their conclusions and accusations valid?”

My guess is that the cognitive process of practically all women who sympathise with feminism stopped at “as far as I am concerned”. (Which says a lot on its own 😉 )

Apparently it takes a “male” mind to question something that started out right.
A “female” mind apparently is satisfied with things that appear to be true. Or that feel true.

The difference between Truth and Truthiness.


Who’s responsible for not living in grass huts?

If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.

Camille Paglia

While there is a lot of truth to this, today’s non sequitur strikes me as true as well.

Nagging. One of civilizations most important inventions and women’s great contribution


Who cares about men?

No one

The rape of men | Society | The Observer.

When does a human being begin?

The discussion on abortion has as far as I can tell two aspects that are practically always overlooked in almost all discussions.

The first is that during the time of conception and the time of birth the relationship between mother and child is unique. There is no other situation where one human is life-dependently attached to another person like this, altering the latter’s life completely. This alone makes killing a fetus to something quite different from killing an independently alive person, in a moral as well as a criminal sense. It’s somewhere between murder and self-defense but actually neither.
But that is not mine to discuss here.

The other aspect is actually the first to consider: “When, exactly, does human life begin?” When could we theoretically (ignoring the other aspect) even speak of murder? For a murder to take place there must be a person. You can’t murder a centipede.

When you look at this image, where would you draw the line, “Now this is a human being”?


I think that anyone who claims to have a simple and decisive and objectively correct answer to this question is an ideologically blind moron.

At one end A) sex hasn’t happened yet. Semen and egg are still in different persons. I can think of no argument whatsoever that could call this a human being.

B) is in the middle of the sexual act. But the pair is using birth control (indicated by a condom)˛ so the semen never actually touches the egg. Only hardcore idiots who take the story of Onan too literally would call this murder, right? So, still no human being in sight.

C) is the moment immediately before the semen hits the egg. Nothing has happened yet, but it is practically certain that conception will happen. Anyone claiming that in this state we have a “person” that can be “murdered” is off his rocker.

D) is the moment of conception. Some claim, as far as I can make out, that this is the moment of “Hey presto: human being”. There isn’t even a cell yet. Practically nothing has changed compared to C).

In the first week F) we have a few cells. This is as different from a human as an oyster.

In the fifth week H) the human form starts to be distinguishable.

In the 16th week J) the human is on its way. Far from finished but decidedly human-y

After birth M) we have a baby. Breathes on its own and interacts with people. Still not able to live on its own for quite some time to come, but quite decidedly human.
(Some treat even this human as if it where the possession of the mother, which would make it not-quite-human, but that is another sidetrack altogether)

So. Somewhere between C) and M) the human being begins. Life as such begins with E) (at the latest), but where is the point that we can speak of a person that can be murdered? E) is ludicrously early as far as I’m concerned and M) is far too late.

But when? What would you say? And more importantly: why?

For what it’s worth: In Germany abortions are allowed in the first three months. In other words, German Law says, a human starts with J). I can agree with that.

You thought, Web 2.0 was a good idea?

I am not so sure any longer. After reading the study here.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.

Perhaps users get used to bad arguing and this effect diminishes over time. I won’t hold my breath.

Until then the trolls will yield more power than you thought.

Experiences with glass ceilings

There are some phrases you hear so often that you develop an automatic mental reaction. For “there is a glass ceiling” my automatic reaction for the last year was “yeah, more like a warm tub.”

Reading about this attempt to build an all-female company I wonder if there actually is a glass ceiling and a perfectly good and rational reason for it.

Most of the time it is as easy as that…

No need to monger hysterical fears.


[Image found here]

Modern vs. Postmodern – when worlds collide

Just found an academic account of what is going wrong in post-modern academia.

Modern discourse

Following are ten key characteristics of modern discourse, what many professors and students even now consider the normal or standard way to think, study and argue in the academy:

  • “personal detachment from the issues under discussion,” the separation of participants’ personal identities from subjects of inquiry and topics of debate;
  • values on “confidence, originality, agonism, independence of thought, creativity, assertiveness, the mastery of one’s feelings, a thick skin and high tolerance for your own and others’ discomfort”;
  • suited to a heterotopic space like a university class, scholarly journal, or session of a learned society conference, a place apart much like a playing field for sports events, where competitors engage in ritual combat before returning with a handshake to the realm of friendly, personal interaction;
  • illustrated by debate in the British House of Commons;
  • epitomized by the debates a century ago between socialist G. B. Shaw and distributist G. K. Chesterton;
  • playfulness is legitimate: one can play devil’s advocate, speak tongue in cheek, overstate and use hyperbole, the object being not to capture the truth in a single, balanced monologue, but to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions;
  • “scathing satire and sharp criticism” are also legitimate;
  • the best ideas are thought to emerge from mutual, merciless probing and attacking of arguments, with resultant exposure of blindspots in vision, cracks in theories, inconsistencies in logic;
  • participants are forced again and again to return to the drawing board and produce better arguments;
  • the truth is understood not to be located in any single voice, but to emerge from the conversation as a whole.

Postmodern discourse

Over the past half century, a competing mode of discourse, the one I call postmodern, has become steadily more entrenched in academe. Following are ten of its hallmarks, as Roberts and Sailer describe on their blogs:

  • “persons and positions are ordinarily closely related,” with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;
  • “sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values”;
  • priority on “cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus”;
  • “seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge,” in the eyes of proponents of modern discourse;
  • tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern discourse as “vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus”;
  • is oriented to “the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum”;
  • lacking “means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation,” it will “typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition”;
  • “will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.”;
  • has a more feminine flavor, as opposed to the more masculine flavor of modern discourse;
  • results in “stale monologues” and contexts that “seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers.”

Ever had a discussion with an average feminist? Then you’ll know exactly what they are talking about.

Read the whole thing here, it’s quite interesting.

On body language and verbal language

Dr. Warren Farrell is accused of rape apology not least because he thinks that the interplay between verbal language and body language is complex and that, if any rule is possible at all, body language tends to be more important.

Prominent feminists repudiate that notion altogether (“No means No, no exceptions”), others are more or less confused.

Since I think that a slightly oversimplifying picture can help illustrate (ha) a point, I cobbled together this:


Ask yourself: would you say the girl on the left is really saying yes or no? She is in fact saying both. Which one should the boy believe and act on?

If your answer is “No”, you are not from this world.

If your answer is “Yes”, you just agreed that the topic is far more complicated than some want us to believe.

Especially since the behaviour in the flirt phase (or most any phase for that matter) is located in the white “don’t express anything” area in the middle. Every approving or disproving “statement” will likely be very subtle and prone to be misunderstood.


Edit: permutationofninjas further elaborates:

What it’s actually about is avoiding people being taught to listen to body language rather than speech in the first place. What this requires is people to generally synchronize their actions with their body language, most of the time.

When we stop people from being taught to privilege body language over speech through years of dealing with people who don’t say what they mean, the occasional bit of confusion between the two won’t matter because people will be used to listening to what people say in the first place. The issue isn’t necessarily “body language and speech being out of sync”, but rather “people getting used to other people purposely saying things different to what they mean.”

This is flying in the face of the female’s concept of “plausible deniability” that is – as far as I can make out – so deeply rooted, that for the next umpteen generations it does not matter if it is actually rooted in biology or sociology.

In other words: There are soooo many reasons underlying the “I mean yes, or probably I am as yet only open to be convinced, but will never ever ever say so.” attitude that at least 90% of women alive today will never be taught to bring verbal and subliminal messages in line.

In yet other words: I have the highest respect for the humans** at permutationofninjas, but having an ideology (in their case probably along the line “Truth and Honesty are more important than most anything”) blinds you.

It happens to the best of us.

*) xkcd art included under fair-use-rule.

**) Their admins don’t tire emphasizing that they are as mixed a bunch of het-gay-cis-noncis people that I know of no other fitting collective term

Why “stud shaming” is not the male equivalent of “slut shaming”

I recently thought aloud about the assumed (by feminists) double standard regarding “slut shaming”, reflecting about the lack of double standard due to the difference between “easily obtained sex” (for girls) and “friggin’ difficult to attain sex” (for men).

Today it occurred to me that “easy sex” is the crux of the matter. Are men shamed for having the sex that they can easily get?

You bet they are.
(The links are more or less random off google’s first two result-pages)

So, next time a woman complains about slut shaming ask her how she feels about men visiting prostitutes.

Want to bet what the answer will be?


It’s not. It’s just her double standard.

And if you need help in arguing the courtesan’s perspective I wholeheartedly recommend this blog.